According to a Hardware.info report that cites an internal Intel document circulated to partners, the company's upcoming Haswell platform faces an erratum that could be fairly noticeable by end-users. The problem is confined to the platform's integrated USB 3.0 SuperSpeed host controller.

A system based on Haswell platform, when waking from S3 sleep mode, will experience issues with devices connected through USB 3.0. If you have open documents, videos, or music playing off of a USB 3.0 storage device, applications accessing that data could freeze, needing you to reopen them. For example, a PDF document you have open on Adobe Reader could display a blank page after waking up from S3, needing you to reopen the document and/or Adobe Reader. The bug doesn't cause any loss of data, but could be an irritant. An Intel representative told the source that launch of the Haswell platform is on-track for mid-2013.

More info would be nice. I wonder what do they mean when they say the user might needs to reopen the file? If an application freezes only because of an I/O problem, that might be an issue with the application also. Perhaps it's easily fixable by the BIOS or in the drivers.

I wish companies had time to test deeper and deeper their products
BEFORE they hit the shelves

Click to expand...

Companies do have time to properly validate their products but the competition rushes crap to market so other companies feel the need to rush their crap to market also. Asus has made fortunes by rushing crapware to PC hardware sites for glowing reviews (and ad revenues for the reviewers), even when their products have had a laundry list of issues.

The current mentality in the PC industry and perhaps other industries is "ship it now, fix it later if we are forced to". Many people just accept the product defects as if they are no big deal. As a result the hardware and software makers continue to rush crapware to market for great profits as they don't need to spend the time and money to properly validate their products. It's about as unscrupulous as you can get and not get convicted for fraud.

For Intel to be circulating a notice of this CPU issue suggests they don't know how to fix the defect which should be a great concern to anyone planning to use devices on their USB 3.0 with Haswell.

Companies do have time to properly validate their products but the competition rushes crap to market so other companies feel the need to rush their crap to market also. Asus has made fortunes by rushing crapware to PC hardware sites for glowing reviews (and ad revenues for the reviewers), even when their products have had a laundry list of issues.

The current mentality in the PC industry and perhaps other industries is "ship it now, fix it later if we are forced to". Many people just accept the product defects as if they are no big deal. As a result the hardware and software makers continue to rush crapware to market for great profits as they don't need to spend the time and money to properly validate their products. It's about as unscrupulous as you can get and not get convicted for fraud.

For Intel to be circulating a notice of this CPU issue suggests they don't know how to fix the defect which should be a great concern to anyone planning to use devices on their USB 3.0 with Haswell.

Click to expand...

True for the most part except in Intel's case, they face no such competitive pressure in the market this chip is assigned to.

I already use USB 3.0, its on my laptop and all the computers I have built in the last year. I own a USB 500GB drive and a USB 64GB thumb drive.

I have to wonder if this is all it does, for example the firmware on the SSD's wasn't supposed to affect users really, nor was the miscalculation in the CPU. It is troubling they found such an obvious error yet have no fix for it before release.

Forcing your hardware partners to acceps a flawed product and not promising to replace those flawed products with a fixed one later is taking the piss.

Intel can only get away with it because they're so big and don't have competition. What other flaws do these chips have that they're hiding?

Click to expand...

I guess you forgot P67, or X79, both of which shipped with drive controller issues...P67 bad enough for a recall, X79 missing drive plugs and lacking PCIE 3.0...really, when it comes to hardware design execution, Intel has being missing the target for some time now, and nobody says a word about it. People are willing to deal with the issues to get more speed, it seems.

BTW, USB issues have been dogging me since the UEFI release, so no, this isn't that big of a bug, really...since any current board has had it or still has it in some form or another.

I guess you forgot P67, or X79, both of which shipped with drive controller issues...P67 bad enough for a recall, X79 missing drive plugs and lacking PCIE 3.0...really, when it comes to hardware design execution, Intel has being missing the target for some time now, and nobody says a word about it. People are willing to deal with the issues to get more speed, it seems.

BTW, USB issues have been dogging me since the UEFI release, so no, this isn't that big of a bug, really...since any current board has had it or still has it in some form or another.

Click to expand...

I knew there was stuff like this in the past, but I'd forgotten these specifics, yes.

Anyway, these make the situation worse, not better and show just how entrenched the problem is. :shadedshu

Didn't Intel generally recall the faulty parts though? I remember they did that for the faulty sata ports a while back when Sandy Bridge was released, avoiding a scandal.

I guess you forgot P67, or X79, both of which shipped with drive controller issues...P67 bad enough for a recall, X79 missing drive plugs and lacking PCIE 3.0...really, when it comes to hardware design execution, Intel has being missing the target for some time now, and nobody says a word about it. People are willing to deal with the issues to get more speed, it seems.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but in all honest I've had fewer USB issues on my X79 machine than I did on my Phenom II 940 on a M4N72-E. You forgot to mention how the first stepping of the 3930k and 3960x didn't have VT-d, another reason that made me lean more towards the 3820 at the time as it was a consideration for my purposes.

i'd be affected by this if i ran intel systems, since i keep my media on a USB 3 stick and leave it attached to my laptop a lot while watching movies (its nice to sleep, wake it up, and continue as it was)